Sport for all – or an Olympic elite?

No good purpose is served by merging UK Sport and Sport England (Olympic authority demands role in merged body, 28 July). UK Sport has been an unqualified success story, transforming performance at international level. In contrast, Sport England has for 25 years been overmanned and unfocused. A nation defines itself by its commitment to excellence. The last thing that government should do is to tamper with an organisation which has consistently delivered it.

At a superficial level, a merger may seem logical, and the argument may be made that international performance depends on high participation levels. Not so. No event shows this more clearly than the marathon. There, male participation levels have risen close on a thousandfold since 1980, but performance levels have dropped. The independence of UK Sport must be retained, for linking it with Sport England can result only in dilution and damage to our Olympic prospects. What is needed is a rigorous review of Sport England, a quango which has struggled to make substantial improvement in participation levels. Taxpayers' cash should instead be directly injected at source, to county sports partnerships and local authorities for support to our best clubs. And sport (and the arts) must be made a statutory requirement for our local authorities. That could be done at the flick of a pen, and at no cost. That (and excellence) is the Big Society.

Sport isn't just about winning, it's about taking part. I subscribe to this old but reasonable view. If Olympic funding is just directed towards a tiny minority of elite sports then large numbers of people involved in the other Olympic sports will be told that their sport isn't valid and so they need not take part, and newer sports like floorball (pencilled in for the 2020 Summer Olympics) will never get a look in.

Sport is less about nationhood than it is about people. British pride is, in my opinion, a lower priority than giving large numbers of children and young adults something to aim for, keeping them healthy and helping them develop as adults by playing sports as part of a team. The Olympics is more useful to us as a nation as a way of keeping our youngsters engaged in society and not part of crime and excessive behaviour (eg drinking) as so often happens these days.

And what about the world's perception of Britain? Having well-behaved young Brits on holiday abroad every summer is more important to Britain than a few Olympic medals once every four years.

• "Do we want to win – yes or no?" asks Peter Keen. Do we not hope that as many people as possible compete and enjoy themselves? At a time of economic constraint, why should the taxpayer support a few full-time professional sportsmen and women who spend their whole lives training and competing at the expense of the community? It would be wonderful to see a true amateur who did a proper job for a living finish with a medal.

Michael Cornelius

Ledbury, Herefordshire

• I have been on the 2012 Olympic site as I was interested in volunteering to help at the London Olympics as a "Games Maker". I was shocked to see that the "presenting partner" for the Games Maker (volunteer) programme is McDonald's. Why have the organisers of our Olympics let them become hijacked by a company that promotes and sells junk food? How will this sponsorship help Britons become a healthier nation?

Shaun Oliver

Portsmouth, Hampshire

• Your report (Olympic authority tops quango rich list, 2 July) reveals what may have been the real motivation behind the intensive lobbying for the UK to host the Olympics. The executives' securing of 15 salaries between £142,000 and £390,000 rings a contrasting sour note with their pleas for volunteers to see the job through.